Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Glass fracture strength is quite low (Allow = ~1000 psi = process dependent)
Stress must still be checked! - especially non-operational (ie launch)
Material Properties
Materials Figure of Merit
E CTE K Cp
(Gpa) (kg/m^3) (ppm/C) (W/M K) (W sec/Kg K) E/ K/ D/
Aluminum 68 2700 0.33 23.6 167 960 Aluminum 25 7.1 2.7
Beryllium I-70A 287 1850 0.08 11.3 216 1820 Beryllium 155 19.1 5.7
Titanium 114 4430 0.31 8.8 7.3 522 Titanium 26 0.8 0.4
Stainless 304 193 8000 0.27 14.7 16.2 477 Stainless 304 24 1.1 0.3
Stainless 416 200 7800 0.28 9.9 24.9 480 Stainless 416 26 2.5 0.7
Magnesium 45 1770 0.35 25.2 138 1024 Magnesium 25 5.5 3.0
Copper 117 8940 0.34 16.9 391 420 Copper 13 23.1 6.2
Invar 36 141 8050 0.29 1.4 10.4 515 Invar 18 7.4 1.8
SiC (RB 12% Si) 373 3110 0.21 2.68 147 680 SiC (RB 12%) 120 54.9 25.9
SiC (RB 30% Si) 310 2920 0.21 2.64 158 660 SiC (RB 30%) 106 59.8 31.1
SiC CVD 466 3210 0.21 2.4 146 700 SiC CVD 145 60.8 27.1
Silicon 131 2330 0.28 2.5 137 710 Silicon 56 54.8 33.1
Carbon/SiC 245 2650 2.5 135 660 Carbon/SiC 92 54.0 30.9
AlBeMet (62/38) 197 2100 0.17 13.9 212 1560 AlBeMet 94 15.3 4.7
Borosilicate 59 2180 0.2 2.8 1.1 710 Borosilicate 27 0.4 0.3
Fused Silica 73 2205 0.17 0.58 1.4 741 Fused Silica 33 2.4 1.5
ULE 67 2205 0.18 0.03 1.3 766 ULE 30 43.3 25.7
Zerodur 91 2530 0.24 0.05 1.6 821 Zerodur 36 32.0 15.4
GY-70/x30 93 1780 0.02 GY-70/x30 52
250 Stiff
Carbon/SiC
Materials
Stainless Steel
200 AlBeMet
150 Invar
Silicon
Titanium
Graphite Copper
Epoxy
100 Zerodur
ULE
Aluminum
50 Borosilicate
Magnesium Heavy Materials
0
1000 2000 3000 4000 5 00 0 6 000 7000 8000 9 00 0
PeakValleydisplacementcoefficient
SupportCondition CB
3pointsat0.65R 0.316
3pointsat1.0R 1.356
6pointsat0.68R 0.041
Ringat0.68R 0.028
Simplysupportedatedge 0.828
Clampedatedge 0.187
Simply-supported edge
3-point mount = knife edge support
dz=d=0 (Translations = 0,
Rotations = free)
n 2f n K M E fn~(E/)1/2
Eh 3 m mass/unit area = h
Df
12(1 2 )
X Compression on bottom
Causes +Y strain on bottom
In a plate, these are stacked side by side. Since all elements want to contract on top,
none can. Therefore this makes the plate stiffer by the (1-2) effect.
At the plate edge, this is called anticlastic curvature.
E/ is important, but
other factors must also be
considered.
140
Structural
Performance
120 Silicon
Carbide (RB 30%)
Specific Stiffness, E/
100
AlBeMet
Carbon/SiC
80
Composites
60 Silicon
Borosilicate Zerodur
40 Stainless Steel
ULE
Aluminum
Magnesium
20 Invar
Copper Thermal
Titanium
Performance
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Transient Thermal Distortion, D/
200
M55J biased
0
-200
M55J quasi-iso
-400
Secant CTE of 273 to 60
Delta L/L (ppm)
-600
-800
-1000
Tangent CTE about 60
-1200
Be
-1400
-1600
Ti
-1800
SS
-2000
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Tem pertature (K)
Be Ball Delta L/L (ppm) 440C Ball/SRI Delta L/L (ppm) Ti-6Al-4V Ball/SRI Delta L/L (ppm)
Use Secant CTE to calculate
M55J Biased (X-direction) GSFC Delta L/L (ppm)
M55J Quasi-Iso cooldown
NGST/SRI Delta L/L (ppm) RT to 60K
Use Tangent CTE to study variations about 60K
Ti = Titanium, Be = Beryllium, SS = Stainless Steel, M55J = Graphite-Epoxy
Originial size
Thick=4.0
Key properties:
Fused Silica: K = 1.4 W/M-K = 0.58 ppm/C
SiC(30%): K = 158 W/M-K = 2.64 ppm/C
Key properties:
Fused Silica: K = 1.4 W/M-K = 0.58 ppm/C D = 0.87e-6 m2/sec
SiC(30%): K = 158 W/M-K = 2.64 ppm/C D = 82.1e-6 m2/sec
Silicon carbide offers excellent thermal and structural characteristics with a low
CTE, high conductivity, high stiffness, and moderate density and are an attractive
material for mirror substrates and support structures. The material is a ceramic and
produced using several methods including CVD (chemical vapor deposition) and
reaction bonding (sintering). A drawback to silicon carbide is its inherent
brittleness and design efforts must ensure appropriate margins of safety to minimize
fracture. Silicon & Carbon/Silicon Carbide are developing materials offering high
stiffness and thermal stability.
Beryllium is an attractive material used for mirror substrates and support structures
due to its high stiffness, low density, and high thermal conductivity. Drawbacks
include a relatively high CTE making it susceptible to thermal gradients, and high
cost. However, tangent CTE near zero over cryo range. Material fabrication and
machining processes are complex and require special facilities (dust is poisonous).
Aluminum alloys are commonly used for optical mirrors and support structures.
Characteristics of aluminum include high thermal conductivity, ease of machining,
low cost, moderate stiffness, and high CTE. Thermal gradients must be minimized
using aluminum due to its high CTE.
Borosilicate glass has primarily been replaced by use of ULE or Zerodur due to
their near zero CTE. However, advantages of this material include low cost and the
ability to cast lightweighted mirrors.
Steel is three times the stiffness and weight of aluminum with moderately high
CTE and low conductivity. Ground-based telescope structures often employ steel
for it low cost but due its weight and poor thermal metrics steel is not commonly
used as a support structure for high performance optical systems.
Copper's advantage is its high thermal conductivity and is commonly used in
optical system thermal design applications. Copper is heavy with moderate
stiffness and has a high CTE.
Magnesium offers similar characteristics to aluminum but is lighter making it an
option for relative weight-savings. It's conductivity is slightly lower and CTE
slightly higher than aluminum with a stiffness -to-weight ratio the same.
Magnesium is susceptible to corrosion and must be coated for protection.
Invar, an iron and nickel alloy with a low CTE, is commonly used to maintain
optical element stability over temperature. Disadvantages of Invar include a
relatively low specific stiffness, low conductivity, and high density.
Hubble: Graphite-Epoxy/ ULE JWST: Composite / Beryllium SOFIA: Carbon Fiber / Zerodur
Typical materials:
Epoxy: stiff, relatively strong (possible distortion of optic)
Provides good strength and stiffness; poor isolation from mount
E = 200,000 psi (1.38 GPa), = 0.2
RTV (Silicone, rubber): soft, weak (requires special design & analysis)
Provides good isolation from mount; poor strength and stiffness
E = 500 psi (3.45MPa), => 0.5 (nearly incompressible)
K IC
ult If crack geometry unknown, use Y=1.26 for semi-circular penny crack
Y a
Estimate KIC using manufacturers data on lapping hardness, modulus of elasticity, knoop
hardness
lapping hardness: material removal for a given pressure, velocity, coolant, abrasive
Schott: h - height reduction; Ohara: Ohara factor, Aa; Hoya: Hoya factor, FA
Aa (OHARA)
Cracks under stress grow due to the influence of moisture Crack Propagation Data
N
K Power law expression for
V V0 crack velocity vs. stress intensity:
K IC V-K curve
Stress Intensity Factor (105 N/m3/2)
Glass materials vary in their ability to resist crack growth Common Flaw Growth Exponents13
Materials N
Slower crack growth for larger flaw growth BK7 20
susceptibility exponent, n Zerodur 31
Fused Silica 35
e.g. for window materials, fused silica preferred Zinc Selenide 40
Calcium Fluoride 50
over BK7 when strength and crack growth primary Zinc Sulfide 76
concern ULE 27
Magnesium Fluoride 10
4000 1 Hour
Pepi Approximate
3500 Exact Method
1 day
Tensile Stress (psi)
3000
1 year
2500
2000
1500
0 2 4 6 8 10
10 10 10 10 10 10
Time to Failure (sec)
1) Marschall, C.W. et al., Continuation of a Study of Stability of Structural Materials for Spacecraft Applications
for the Orbiting Astronomical Observatory Project, NASA Contract NAS5-11195, October 12, 1969.
2) Lambropoulos, John C., Xu, Su, Fang, Tong, "Loose abrasive lapping hardness of optical glasses and its
interpretation", Applied Optics, Vol. 36, No. 7, March, 1997.
3) Preston, F. W., The Structual Analysis of Abraded Glass Surfaces", Trans. Opt. Soc. (London), XXIII: 141
(1921-1922)
4) Varner, J. R., Fatigue and Fracture Behavior of Glasses, Fatigue and Fracture of Composites, Ceramics,
and Glasses.
5) Wiederhorn, S. M., Roberts, D. E., Fracture Mechanics Study of Skylab Windows, National Bureau of
Standards, Rept. 10 892, May 31, 1972.
6) Roebeen, G., Steen, M., Bressers, J, Van der Biest, O., "Mechanical Fatigue in Monolithic Non-tranforming
Ceramics", Progress in Materials Science 40, 265-331, 1996.
7) Quinn, G. D., Morrell, R., Design Data for Engineering Ceramics: A Review of the Flexure Test, J. AM.
Ceram. Soc. 74(9) 2037-66 (1991).
8) Wiederhorn, S. M., "Prevention in glass by Proof-Testing", Journal of the American Ceramic Society, April,
1973.
9) Evans, A. G., Wiederhorn, S. M., Proof testing of ceramic materials - an analytical basis for failure
prediction", International Journal of Fracture, Vol. 10, No. 3, September, 1974.
10) Wiederhorn, S. M., Reliability, Life Prediction, and Proof Testing of Ceramics, NBSIR 74-486, National
Bureau of Standards, Washbington, D.C., May 1974.
11) Evans, A. G. and Fuller, E. R., Crack propagation in ceramic materials under cyclic load conditions, Met.
Trans., 5, 27-33, (1974).
12) Suresh, S., Fatigue of Materials, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
13) Jacobs, D. S., Chen, I. W., "Cyclic fatigue in ceramics: a balance between crack shielding accumulation and
degradation", J.Am. Cer. Soc. 78, 513-520, 1995.
14) Doyle, K.B., Kahan, M. A., "Design Strength of Optical Glass", SPIE Annual Meeting, August, 2003, San
Diego, CA.